Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7177605" data-attributes="member: 1465">Yes there's always a good deal of subjectivity when it comes to illusions, so be prepared to read opinions rather than factual solutions <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I wouldn't grant cover from an illusion, only concealment. So use it for hiding purposes. It is not obvious if the caster can automatically see through her own illusions. If you allow that, then obviously you always create the illusion of total cover.Assuming we're talking about partial cover, I might give them a check to disbelieve if they hit when they should have hit the cover. Say e.g. your normal AC is 14 and behind cover it would be 19. If they roll >19 then they hit you and don't notice anything weird; if they roll <14 they miss both you and the cover and don't notice anything; if they roll 14-18 they hit you while they should have hit the cover and thus get a check vs Illusion to understand why.(But I might also not. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to grant such check. It's just as possible that in the midst of battle and at a certain range, an archer might not immediately notice that his arrows should hit the wall and are instead going through it. I might also decide to grant the check after a few rounds, but not the first time.)If you created total cover, they might see your attack spells coming from that direction, and decide to shoot towards that, in which case again they'll see their arrows disappear into the wall, and this can count as an interaction enough for the purpose of revealing the illusion to them.If the cantrip is better, then don't use anything higher level... it's a perk <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Uhm... where are you getting this "choose to disbelieve" option? There is usually a possible voluntary investigation activity described in illusion spells, although I'd say a more proper way to talk about it is a PC "choosing to investigate". Maybe it's just semantics, but "I choose to disbelieve" to me sounds like what you do when your PC decides to act regardless of the illusion. A famous example is Indiana Jones (in the Last Crusade) stepping towards the chasm without seeing the bridge.Investigating is supposed to the a safer choice, and more "expensive" in terms of actions because it's an activity on its own. Indiana Jones doing this would have meant him prodding forward with hands or a stick, or throwing the rocks before trying to walk. In combat with some illusionary cover it's assumed that the attacker has no reason to suspect, and so investigating shouldn't even cross his mind. Interacting casually doesn't always have to grant a check, but (as I said previously) I might decide to grant it anyway. In a way, the illusion has probably already served some purpose, as maybe others have not tried to attack the target because of it.I am not too fond of this idea.But they can choose to believe their ally and start shooting at the target even tho they still see the cover. As the illusion doesn't grant the AC bonus because it doesn't stop the arrows, it makes sense to do so.They don't see through it, but they can know it's an illusion if you tell them so.He can choose to cast through the wall, but it's risky (what if you instead cast a real wall? he cannot know for sure), and as long as the wall is visible he might not be able to target his spells beyond it.BTW, I don't think you can use Minor Illusion to create illusionary creatures, only objects.It could be a valid tactic, but not fool proof. After the first illusion, he might choose to ignore the other illusions by assuming they are in fact illusionary, and so not need to spend an action to interact with each one. But they might still block vision, which in turn can block targetting with certain spells. And who knows if you decide to conjure something real after the first couple of illusions instead...Indirect observation might give them the suspect, but I think only direct investigation (if successful) gives them proof. As before... the next illusion remains effective unless they interact with it, but they may choose to ignore it.Imagine someone casting a brick wall illusion to run away. A pursuing enemy stops at it, and spends an action trying to prod the wall, and figures out it's an illusion so decides to walk though it. Then the fugitive casts another wall illusion then another... The pursuer might decide to skip prodding and run straight into any walls beyond, faithful that they're all illusionary. If they are, then good for him, but if they aren't...Then it means the ability is not meant to provide a combat benefit.The DM roleplays the NPCs as best as she can. I wouldn't metagame and have the NPCs do the right thing just because as a DM I know what it is. I'd just try to make them behave reasonably.Creativity can definitely be rewarded. A player who goes into the specifics of what the illusion should look like (instead of just staying on the generic) will certainly affect my decisions on what the NPCs would do.Yes they do. Distraction is the main point of an auditory illusion, in or out of combat. Whether it works, it depends on whether the caster has a good idea and on what kind of enemies. The result doesn't have to be major, such as the enemies actually retreating, it could be something minor such as not choosing the best possible action. Interaction with sounds is much less obvious to define, because you can't verify by touch. It might be that just not seeing any lion around after a round or two could be a reason to be granted a check to recognize it's an illusion.</blockquote>

Verification